📧 “PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE … RELIEF” to Benton Circuit Court
I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Logan M. Isaac brings this action pursuant to ORS 192.415, ORS 192.418, and ORS 192.431, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief to compel Respondent Oregon State University (“OSU”) to disclose public records to which Petitioner is entitled under Oregon Public Records Law, ORS 192.311 et seq.
On April 28, 2026, Petitioner submitted a petition to the Benton County District Attorney pursuant to ORS 192.415. The legislature has fixed the reviewing authority’s deadline at seven days from receipt. ORS 192.418(1). That deadline is not a target or a default that a reviewing authority may waive or extend by substituting its own preferred schedule. It is a statutory limit, and the legislature’s choice to impose it reflects a deliberate policy judgment that requesters are entitled to swift resolution—a judgment that applies uniformly, without regard to institutional convenience.
The District Attorney responded to the petition on April 28, 2026, but rather than issuing an order within the statutory period, proposed a 22-day briefing schedule extending to May 20, 2026—a schedule that has no basis in ORS 192.415, ORS 192.418, or any other provision of Oregon Public Records Law. No such schedule appears in the statute. The legislature did not authorize the reviewing authority to create one.
As of May 5, 2026—the seventh day from receipt of the petition—no order has issued. By operation of ORS 192.418(1), the District Attorney’s failure to act within the statutory period constitutes a deemed denial of the petition. Petitioner is therefore entitled to institute the instant proceedings, and does so now.
II. PARTIES
Petitioner Logan M. Isaac is an individual resident of Oregon, with a mailing address of 250 Broadalbin St. SW, Suite 104, Albany, OR 97321.
Respondent Oregon State University is a public university organized and operating under ORS Chapter 352. Pursuant to ORS 352.138(1), OSU is treated as a public body for purposes of Oregon Public Records Law. Because OSU is a public body “other than a state agency” within the meaning of ORS 192.415(1), review of its public records determinations is carried out by the district attorney of the county in which its administrative offices are located, and enforcement lies in this Court. OSU’s administrative offices are located at 1500 SW Jefferson Ave., Corvallis, OR 97331, Benton County, Oregon.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to ORS 192.415(1)(b), which provides that any suit challenging a public records denial by a public body other than a state agency must be filed in the circuit court for the county in which the public body’s administrative offices are located. OSU’s administrative offices are located in Benton County, Oregon.
Petitioner’s right to institute these proceedings arises under ORS 192.418(1), which provides that the failure of a district attorney to issue an order within seven days from the day of receipt of a petition shall be treated as an order denying the petition for the purpose of determining whether a person may institute proceedings for injunctive or declaratory relief. That seven-day period expired on May 5, 2026.
Proceedings under ORS 192.431 take precedence on the docket over all other causes and shall be assigned for hearing and trial at the earliest practicable date.
IV. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 2, 2026, Petitioner submitted a formal public records request and preservation demand to OSU’s Department of Public Safety and Public Records Officer Janet Harrison (PRR 2026-216), requesting records related to an incident on April 1, 2026 involving OSU Department of Public Safety officers, including: (a) all incident reports, police reports, and dispatch records related to OSU DPS Case No. 2025-00494; (b) all body-worn camera footage recorded by OSU DPS officers during the April 1, 2026 incident; (c) all audio recordings, including dispatch audio, related to the incident; and (d) all database records associated with Case No. 2025-00494.
The five-business-day acknowledgment deadline under ORS 192.324(2) elapsed without any response from OSU. On April 10, 2026, Petitioner notified OSU’s Office of General Counsel of the lapse. OSU acknowledged the request later that day and set April 24, 2026 as its anticipated response date.
On April 13, 2026, Petitioner submitted a supplemental public records request expanding the scope to include: (a) all communications between OSU DPS officers and staff at Good Samaritan Regional Medical Center on April 1, 2026; (b) all records reflecting information provided to hospital staff regarding the basis for Petitioner’s detention; (c) all records reflecting any decision to deny Petitioner access to a chaplain during detention; and (d) all records reflecting the identity of the officer who took possession of Petitioner’s cell phone and any records of its disposition while in OSU DPS custody. OSU acknowledged the supplemental request on April 15, 2026.
On April 27, 2026, OSU responded to both requests with: (a) a cost estimate of $332.05 for certain records, without providing an itemized breakdown of what the estimate covers or confirming whether the supplemental request is included; and (b) a blanket denial of all body-worn camera footage on the asserted grounds that the footage is exempt under ORS 192.345(40). OSU offered no factual analysis, no public interest balancing, and no application of the statutory standard to the specific footage at issue.
OSU’s response also did not address several categories of records from the supplemental request of April 13, 2026.
On April 27, 2026, Petitioner formally contested OSU’s exemption claim and requested an itemized accounting of the $332.05 fee estimate.
On April 28, 2026, Petitioner submitted a petition to the Benton County District Attorney pursuant to ORS 192.415, requesting review of OSU’s denial of the bodycam footage, the unsubstantiated fee estimate, and the incomplete response to the supplemental request.
The District Attorney acknowledged receipt of the petition on April 28, 2026, but instead of issuing an order within the period established by ORS 192.418(1), proposed a briefing schedule—inviting supplemental submission from Petitioner by May 4, 2026; OSU’s response by May 15, 2026; and a decision by May 20, 2026. This schedule has no statutory foundation. ORS 192.415, incorporating ORS 192.411, provides a seven-day window for the reviewing authority to act. ORS 192.418(1) converts inaction within that window into a deemed denial. Neither provision authorizes the reviewing authority to substitute a multi-week briefing process for the statutory deadline, regardless of the administrative rationale for doing so.
On April 28, 2026, Petitioner notified the District Attorney in writing that the statutory seven-day deadline under ORS 192.415 and ORS 192.418 would expire on or about May 5, 2026, participated in the supplemental submission process as invited, and explicitly reserved all rights arising under ORS 192.418 should no order issue within the statutory period.
As of May 5, 2026, no order has been issued by the District Attorney. Pursuant to ORS 192.418(1), the District Attorney’s failure to issue an order within seven days of receipt of the petition constitutes a deemed denial. Petitioner now institutes proceedings in this Court.
V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
A. OSU’s Blanket Denial of Bodycam Footage Is Unlawful.
ORS 192.345(40) provides a conditional—not absolute—exemption for law enforcement body camera recordings. All exemptions under ORS 192.345 apply only “unless the public interest requires disclosure in the particular instance.” The legislature’s use of a conditional framing imposes an affirmative obligation on the public body: it must evaluate whether the public interest requires disclosure before it may withhold.
Under ORS 192.311(4), the burden is on the public body to establish that an exemption applies. A bare citation to a statute number, without factual analysis, public interest balancing, or application to the specific records at issue, does not satisfy that burden. It is a placeholder, not an argument.
OSU’s April 27, 2026 denial stated only that body cam footage “is exempt pursuant to ORS 192.345(40).” OSU identified no specific facts, conducted no documented balancing, and offered no reasoning connecting the statutory text to the footage at issue. That bare invocation of an exemption number fails as a matter of law.
The public interest in disclosure is substantial. The April 1, 2026 incident involved: (a) physical contact between OSU DPS officers and Petitioner during a detention on campus; (b) administration of Miranda warnings, reflecting OSU DPS officers’ own treatment of the encounter as custodial; (c) statements attributed to OSU DPS officers in Petitioner’s permanent medical record at Good Samaritan Regional Medical Center that are contradicted by OSU’s own Exclusion Notice documentation; and (d) an ongoing dispute regarding the lawfulness of the underlying exclusion order under which Petitioner was detained.
These circumstances—officer use of physical force during detention, a disputed custodial encounter, and conflicting official accounts entered into a third party’s permanent records—are precisely those in which the public interest in body camera transparency is at its apex. OSU has not begun to sustain the burden of showing that any interest in nondisclosure outweighs the public interest in accountability for law enforcement conduct.
B. OSU Has Failed to Fully Respond to the Supplemental Request of April 13, 2026.
Multiple categories of records requested in the April 13, 2026 supplemental request remain unaddressed in OSU’s April 27, 2026 response. OSU has not confirmed whether records in those categories exist, has not stated that they are being withheld, and has not identified any exemption that would apply to them.
OSU’s assistant general counsel represented to the District Attorney on April 28, 2026, that the April 27, 2026 cost estimate encompasses both the original and supplemental requests. That representation does not, however, establish that all categories of supplemental records have been identified, evaluated, or addressed. A fee estimate is not a substantive response to a records request.
C. The $332.05 Fee Estimate Is Disputed and Unsubstantiated.
Petitioner disputes the $332.05 fee estimate. OSU has not provided an itemized breakdown confirming which records are covered and whether the supplemental request is included. Under ORS 192.324(6), a requester who believes a fee is unreasonable may petition the reviewing authority and this Court, which has the same authority over fee disputes as over denial of inspection.
VI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court:
Find that OSU’s failure to issue a lawful denial of the petition—supported by documented public interest balancing and application of ORS 192.345(40) to the specific footage at issue—constitutes a failure to carry its burden under ORS 192.311(4), and order OSU to disclose all body-worn camera footage recorded by OSU DPS officers during the April 1, 2026 incident; or in the alternative, conduct in camera review of the footage and determine whether any portion may be lawfully withheld after conducting the required public interest balancing;
Order that OSU provide a complete itemized accounting of the $332.05 fee estimate, specifying each category of record included and confirming whether the supplemental request of April 13, 2026 is encompassed within that estimate or remains outstanding;
Order that OSU respond fully to all outstanding categories of records identified in the supplemental request of April 13, 2026 that have not yet been addressed;
Award Petitioner reasonable attorney fees, costs, and disbursements pursuant to ORS 192.431, Petitioner having prevailed or substantially prevailed in this matter;
Impose the $200 penalty against OSU authorized under ORS 192.407 for OSU’s undue delay in responding to Petitioner’s April 2, 2026 public records request, which was acknowledged only after Petitioner notified OSU’s Office of General Counsel of the lapsed acknowledgment deadline; and
Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
